| » Forum Index » General comments » Topic: I just ordered you book "How to cheat in Photoshop" |
|
Posted on 27/08/04 01:37:44 AM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Steve: Thanks heaps for the quick "get back" and comments on the .gif. It was quite a challenge for an animation neophyte and I couldn't have done it without your innovative and creative exercises in the second edition of your book. Yeah, it probably is a bit too large for a website, but I'm not actually in to that kind of thing - at this point at least. However, there have been a number of times wherein I have wanted to do a picture reduction ... especially for e-mails, etc. So, now that we're on the subject of size, what size would you recommend for web use - should I ever decide to go that route. Like so many other graphic artists, I generally start large (or larger) and reduce if necessary. Herein lies a twofold question then. Specifically; (1) once a .gif is finished and optomized how then do I re-size? (i.e. exact process), and (2) how to re-size a large (or moderate sized) .jpeg for e-mail, etc. My MSN e-mail (Hotmail, actually) allows for attachments or inclusion. A picture can be easily sized by dragging the corner handles. However, the size does still seem to matter, as MSN denotes in a box above the e-mail text, and asks that the user learn to conserve sizes. Your input would be appreciated here - as your time permits. I should also point out that what I do with Photoshop/Image Ready (and other programs) is strictly for my own entertainment and pleasure. At going on 62 years of age, retired and lots of time on my hands, I have spent from four to six hours a day at least five to six days a week on just computer graphics - of all sorts. I haven't picked my airbrush up in a long time now endeavoring to refine that more cumbersome process to the graphics programs I now own - especially Photoshop. Quite addictive and sometimes very difficult to get away from to do necessary household domestic chores. I'm sure most of you know what I mean here. Thanks for taking your busy time out to cope and work with me on various things. I'm honored, and relish continuing with your excercises in the second edition of your book. p.s. Just for fun I am attaching an airbrush work I did back in the mid eighties. Also interesting and challenging. Will be exhibiting this one along with several more on Webshots in the forseeable future. (The need to be re-sized prior uploading, however.) |
Posted on 27/08/04 02:33:32 AM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Becky: Thanks for the input and highly constructive comments/suggestions on the .gif. At this point, yes, I have established each frame as a layer in Photoshop and use Image Ready as a flipbook and to set all timing. At least this is what I did with "cutie" the animation I submitted - which began as a .jpeg I got off of the web somewhere some time ago. I have played with several others as well, and they have turned out very successful, but - again - this has been all for my own learning experience and fun - nothing professional intended here. It's all a hobby with me. I have not yet done anything which requires a background with an object moving over it, but well understand that such backdrop would be static while moving the object across it from a separate layer (for example), and that each frame would represent one step closer to that object reaching its' destination. About the only real practical exercise I have done, likened to the one you mentioned, was in the Photoshop Classroom In A Book, followed by studying the Photoshop Users Manual. (Still know very little about the "rollover" issues and am not exactly very clear what this is all about yet. This subject - in depth - wasn't really covered in the "Classroom..." excercises.) So - as is obvious, I am really just begining to get my feet wet here. It's been some work, but fun and a super learning experience, and that's what I love to do the most - LEARN, as much as possible about any and everything I can. Still goin' strong at almost 62 years of age here. I have printed out your response to the recently submitted .gif and will study it thoroughly in application to creating my next .gif. I can see that what you suggested also gives the creator far more overall control over the animation while conserving file size as well. As I mentioned to Steve, I'm really not into the "doing things for the web" at this point, but have several young friends who do and are very professional at it. Mine are retrieved from my files for my own enjoyment or to show to someone who might be visiting. However, if I should ever decide to assist one of my graphics professional friends, file conservation knowledge would be of utmost importance. Thanks so much for your time and input, Becky. Invaluable. Look forward to more of your critiques, ideas and suggestions in the forseeable future. |
Posted on 27/08/04 07:32:24 AM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply  |
Re: I just ordered you book
Glad to hear that you intend to get to grips more fully with Image Ready, Hank. Some people don't like the way Image Ready is a layer based gif animator and perfer other gif animator that import a series of bitmapped images, rather like traditional stop frame animation, but once explored Image Ready can do some wonderful things and keep your gif animations optimised for web viewing. The Rollover state in Image Ready is for roll-over buttons in web design the kind of buttons that when the cursor moves over them they change colour or the image changes or when you click on the button a sound is played or the image changes. If you are using Image Ready for making gif animations then you don't need the Rollover function - if you are exploring webdesign with image slices, rollover buttons, image maps etc. then that is a whole other area of Image Ready - but it can leave your web pages code heavy (ie inserting javascript and other extra bits of code to ensure the page works in all browsers) I perfer to code from html and php and use buttons from Flash if need be - but like I said that is a whole different area of Image Ready. Backgrounds don't have to be static, I've done a tutorial on how to scroll a background if you would like to visit my website http://www.maidenart.co.uk/scrolling-background.html in which you could add another layer with an animation of say a car bobbling along or a cartoon character running etc. The point I was making regarding layers is that you can optimise your images better by seperating static objects from moving ones by placing them on seperate layers this helps Image Ready optimise you animation. Becky |
Posted on 27/08/04 09:28:30 AM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Maiden: Please allow me, first, to apologize for addressing you as "Becky". I was in a super rush with my wife to make a movie matinee on time, but wanted to get back with you anyway. Oh, YES!!!! VERY high, indeed, on the Image Ready program for .gifs - of all kinds. After all, it IS the professional addendum program to the "Cadallic" Photoshop. (Can't touch it!!) Though what I have shared as a "first" actual attempt at .gif images (i.e. "cutie"), it was not . I have produced some really BASIC "stop light changing colors" in the past with other programs which I - perhaps - later intended to download. Trial basis, you know. Didn't work out! Too basic for the ultimate level I wanted to achieve. That was two years ago. Now, it's Image ready, and I'm excited and prepared to move to the next level. Meanwhile, continuing in Photoshop - .jpeg, of course, and all of the extreme depth it has to offer. WOW! Gotta LOVE it all! Whatta challenge, huh!! Can't learn enough! Thanks, also, for going into some explanation about rollovers. However, as candid an individual as I have always been, I must now admit to yet another of my errors. I mentioned to you, last, that the "Adobe Classroom In A book" (SUPER! for rank beginners) didn't explain much about rollovers and associated procedures. I wish, at this point, to retract that erronious statement - for the record - and set it perfectly correct (strictly for Adobe and the very fine and ardious author's of their book). Specifically, Lesson 15 - just prior to "Creating Animated Images for the Web", is succintly entitled, "Adding Interactive Slices and Rollovers". I noticed in that study book (as I was inserting your last response I printed out)that I did not include a check mark by that chapter - indicating that I missed reading/studying it. @#^$##!! That's next on my list before returning to Steve's book! Gotta keep things in some semblance of order here. Finally, you mentioned Flash in your last message. AAaaahhh, the ULTIMATE in super 3-D animation as I have researched. I downloaded a "trial" sampler for that too about ten months ago. Could require some javascript knowledge, as I have found, and as you have indicated to me in your previous missive. I have ALL to learn about javascript. Have been reserving Flash (.et al for "dessert"), YUM!!. One that I shall not afford myself until I have climbed the "ropes" and learned much about the more basic .gif animations/dimensions. Perhaps in another year - or so - as my progress/time permits. Don't forget, Maiden, these efforts are for me only as I'm really not interested in web design, etc. - at this point. Again, because of my need for brevity in the last missive, I was only partially articulate on the foreground/background .gif matters. In short, for a change, we are on the same "wave lengths". Message understood, suffice it to be. I highly anticipate visiting your website tomorrow (Saturday), as my time permits me, and the ideas, inspirations and learning experiences - I feel most certain - it will bring to me. Gives lots to look forward to. Again, thanks so much and my very best in your continuances, Hank |
Posted on 30/08/04 00:57:50 AM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Here's the finished work of a 3D eyeball which I learned via Steve's "How to..." book and Becky's website - which specifically addressed this subject. What'cha think? (Added the background and lighting to give it a little more contrast.) Hank .jpg) |
Posted on 30/08/04 09:20:24 AM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
That's works really well Hank you might even be able to use the eye seperated from the background in Steve's tutorial "It's all in the eyes" page 138. Becky |
Posted on 30/08/04 8:27:22 PM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Thanks, Becky. I'll go there next in Steve's tutorial. Incidently, while visiting your most helpful website Saturday, I reviewed and printed out all of your tutorials. Have them next to my Photoshop tutorial books. Sometime this week I want to try out the moving background tutorial. Could use this in a number of different ways. Is this procedure the usual "standard" for moving backgrounds or are there some others in appendage? Thanks heaps for your time and suggestions. It means much in learning and growth. Hank |
Posted on 30/08/04 8:33:52 PM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
I sure there are other ways of moving a background. One is to have objects like trees, bushes, fences, houses etc. move along in one layer while mountains or far off objects stay stationary and your moving object say a car or person on the top most layer walking/driving on the spot. This is a much more realistic method of animating a moving background, but it is also the most time consuming. 
this is a crude example of the method which is called parallax scrolling each moving layer other than the car layer moves at a relative speed to the further objects, the mountains don't move at all because they are so far in the distance. |
Posted on 31/08/04 9:14:42 PM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Thanks for the input. (I have saved the animation for reference and further study for a practical exercise later.) This approach is effective. The picture is "cleaner" (i.e. more resolution). The car seems to be passing the trees just fine - in illusion - however, the ground remains stationary just beside it. That's OK too, because the idea has been conveyed to the casual viewer. I suppose the next step would be back to "square one". Specifically, the mountains remain stationary - as you have depicted above (layer 1). The trees then are made part of the ground and scrolled - as in your tutorial example/exercise (layer 2). Then, the car is animated -as you show above - (layer 3). This marriage would, indeed require a bit more painstaking, but depending on its' use and application might offer the ultimate in effectiveness, say what. Finally, I have come across an interesting perspective problem which has me a bit perplexed at this point and need some input. The two brick walls (depicted below) require shelves placed upon them at given intervals. Looking at the back wall, beginning at the third brick from the bottom, the first shelf is placed along the entire extent of the wall. Subsequently, additional shelves need to be placed along the entire extent of the wall each three bricks - or so until there is adequate room on the top most shelf for objects to be placed on (for simplicity, let's just say cans here). Additionally, there are shelves placed in identical intervals as the back wall on the side wall such that the two shelves - meeting in the corner - come together at a 45 degree angle giving a "wrap around" effect. Upon successful completion of the shelves installation, the objects (cans) are placed across each of the shelves - at each level - on the back wall as well as the side wall giving a well stocked kitchen pantry look. Here is a double challenge for the artist; (1) installing the shelves at the given intervals with the correct perspective, and (2) placing the cans across each shelf (back and side) such that the shelves are "full" while maintaining their proper perspective (and non-distortion) as well. Finally, the lighting. The walls, shelves and cans are in a pantry closet. There is a modest light which hangs down slightly from the ceiling by a short cord. Because the shelves protrude outward at different intervals and distances from the light source, the light and shadows cast will vary, and the light under each shelf will be darker that that above the shelf because the shelf is blocking some of the light at varying degrees from top shelf to the bottom most ones. Most of the time, I am able to overcome lots of technical graphics issues, but this one seems a bit of an enigma. I had thought that, perhaps, Photoshop might allow for moving objects - somehow grouped together, like the shelves, in the same manner as opening and closing Venetian blinds. This would be somewhat simpler in that one could orient the center shelf on the wall at eye level - i.e. coming straight at you - therefore, you would only perceive the front edge of the shelf. Each of the other shelves would then fall to their proper perspectives up and down each wall accordingly. If you and/or Steve could could help me solve this perspective(s) problem, I would certainly appreciate it. Feel free to use the graphic below as you might need for example in the explanation. Meanwhile, I'll move to something else temporarily. Hank  (3).jpg){kind=spacer} |
Posted on 01/09/04 08:53:29 AM |
|
maiden
Golden Gif Gagster Posts: 471 Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
The problem you describe, Hank, is a complex one and not one with an easy solution. Photoshop is not a 3D application and therefore grouping a number of 3D-like objects won't make any difference to Photoshop because it would still treat them as a 2D image. Take, for example, a picture of a bookshelf (pretty similar to what you are describing) no matter how you use the Free Transform Tool Photoshop can only operate upon the image as a 2D image which means that it will not always conform exactly as a 3D model of a bookshelf would in a 3D environment. I could suggest 2 methods to achieve what you seek, the first being that Photoshop has a basic 3D application in the Render Tool Set - outlined in Steve's book in Chapter 10 - The Third Dimension: 3D Tranform Filter: boxes (page 246). Using the 3D Tranform Filter you could take an image of a shelf and transform to fit the perspective of the wall and repeat the process for each layer of shelving. The topmost shelf could be a picture of a shelf with cans placed on it before using the 3D Transform Filter but I suspect the perspective change would make the cans look distorted, so I would suggest using the 3D Transform Filter seperately on each can using the example on page 248 of Steve's book 3D Tranform Filter: cyclinders. The other method is to use a 3D application like 3D Studio Max, Adobe Dimensions, etc. and build the entire scene there before exporting it as a .tiff image to Photoshop to add all your other objects - this would also resolve the lighting issue as the 3D engine of the application would work all that out for you providing you have set up your lighting source to match your intended secne. A good place to start though is referring to Steve's book especially Chapter 10 - The third dimension. Becky |
Posted on 01/09/04 08:54:27 AM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7023 Reply  |
Re: I just ordered you book
Hank, The shelves problem is, of course, greatly eased by the fact that it's a brick wall, so you have the lines of the bricks to follow to gif you your basic perspective. Having said that, you've given yourself quite a distant viewpoint, which will make it harder to draw vanishing point lines that can be seen within the limitations of a normal-sized monitor! But if you can draw lines so a vanishing point is visible, the way to duplicate a shelf in perspective would be to skew it about the vanishing point. I know this is a tricky concept to follow in words, and I'll be explaining it in detail in the next edition. Placing objects on the shelves is hard. You could try using the 3D Transform filter to change the viewpoint of cylindrical and rectangular objects - cans and boxes, that is. A little laborious, but it might be the best way of doing it. Remember that on the upper shelves, you won't see the bottoms of objects, which makes distorting them that much easier! Love the eyeball, you've got a real sense of translucence there. |
Posted on 01/09/04 11:00:07 PM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Thanks much to the both of you for your valuable input here. Most appreciated. I soon came to know that this is an unusually complex task just after starting on it, but wanted to "throw it out" to the two of you for your judgements and best thoughts. I am attaching the rest of the picture to show the entire concept. There will be a subject standing in front of the door - which, incidently, was originally closed - hiding the interrior of the "closet". Steve, I saw your chapter on "opening the door" in your book. Will get to that soon, too. The pantry - or closet - was my conception. The general idea seemed quite simple enough to pull off initially, but as I got further into it, I began to realize that I might have bitten off more than I could chew. I hate anything like this to get the best of me, so I kept on working with it - all the while asking myself if it was really worth all of the efforts/struggling it was going to require to "make it so". Each placement of the shelves (which I also rendered in Photoshop - light natural wooden ones) was WORK and - although I did have the mortar lines of the brick layers to use as natural perspective lines - the results was too 2-D, as you implied, Becky, and non-congruious - when all were in place - perspectively. So, it didn't look "natural" - not convencing. Just "OFF" !!!! - to say the least. Using Photoshop, I first created one brick wall. That, unto itself, took some time. Then I duplicated that image and set the TWO walls into perspective to fit the interior of the closet - as best I could perceive. The "distant viewpoint" which you mentioned, Steve, is actually not. I had to reduce the image way down to meet the kb. limitation. (The first try to sent was unsuccessful. Didn't check the size first.) The actual image is quite large enough for one to easily work with. (My monitor is 18 inches from corner to corner.) "Remember that on the upper shelves, you won't see the bottoms of objects, which makes distorting them that much easier! " Yes, thanks Steve. One would simply "duck" part of the object(s) behind the top shelf to give the illusion it is sitting upon it at a higher level. I've done this several times, but in an image which already existed - say with the shelves, and most of them were a "face on" view making the task far more simple than this one. Not having used the 3D Transform at all yet, I think it best for me to go back to school for a little while here, and get to that chapter in your book. In fact, what I really need to do - overall - at this point, is go from the front of your book to the back and perform ALL of the exercises. Perhaps, then, I might be able to use one or a few of your exercises in combination to pull off many of my concepts. Besides, I need to have an excellent command of all in your book BEFORE proceeding forward to your next one. (First grade first - then the second - and so on.) Anyway, as will be obvious by the attached picture, any "objects" placed upon the shelves in the closet won't actually be that many at the angle the photograph was taken. I can set the lighting - as I have - to closely and convincingly approximate "the real thing". I haven't yet, but I may try taking the walls - and shelves into the Microsoft Picture-It (advanced version) graphics program (amazingly comprehensive) and try some of the perspective manouvers there as well. Photoshop limits the action of "skew" to just skew side-ways top and bottom, while Picture-It allows for a 360 degree skewing. Therefore, in that function (Picture-It) one can not only skew, but size change - or flip - along WITH the skew. Much simpler and faster. Might be a bit easier and less "fiddley" using Bill Gate's program here. But, we'll see. Since this is such a challenging exercise, I don't want to abondon it in favor of an easier route. Can't learn anything THAT way. Just "How To Completely Cop-out In Photoshop", huh? If I am able to get some acceptable results in Picture-It, I will return the images to Photoshop to complete the final results. How does that sound? Ideally, although properly lighting any objects on the shelves would be preferable, I might forgo some of those complicated intricacies and merely "fake it" by using a semi transparent black with the Brush tool and paint in some shadows where needed. Then use the Smudge and/or Blur tool at those points for blending the paint (shadow) in. As you will both see (via the image attached) only a small part of the shelves will actually be seen by the viewer as the rest of the shelves are hidden by the closet wall. Therefore, there will be far fewer objects seen on the shelves making things a bit more copeable ..... perhaps. Steve, thanks for your very nice comment on Becky's "eyeball". Went by her website tutorial there and followed her instructions implicitly. I noticed that your chapter on the same also adds some blood capillaries, .et al. Will have some time to get to that next week and anticipating it all in the meanwhile. As always, thanks a million to you both for taking your valuable time to assist and respond to me. At least now I know I don't have to continue to "go it alone" in Photoshop anymore, and have some top-notch professional assistance "out ... there". Love Great Britain!! .......... also greatly admire Tony Blair, but NOT Geo. Bush. Was visiting in London in 1964 for about a week, then on to other places while attending school in Cannes, France for a couple of months. Would love to get back to England and may have a chance to do so when I visit my daughter and her husband next year who are currently living in Leiden, Holland. (I live in Birmingham, Alabama. Way down south in "Dixie".) He is currently working on his doctorate in Art History at The University of Leiden and teaching there as well. Perhaps - if I can get to Oxford while visiting them - we can pre-arrange for our paths to cross. (??) Would love to meet the both of you in person. Hank  |
Posted on 02/09/04 08:58:23 AM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 7023 Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Hank, thanks for posting your full montage - it makes it much easier for us to see what's going on. There are a couple of issues here: first, you've opened that door way too far - looks like it's busting off its hinges. 180° is the most doors can usually cope with! And how about a bit of a shadow behind it, to space it from the wall a touch? You've got a perspective problem there. (Damn, I really must cover this in the book! It keeps cropping up.) Your cue is given by the angles of the door frame outside the closet (seen in the green circles). The yellow lines show the perspective you should be using: the pink lines show the perspective you've used. It's all a little confused by the wide-angle lens distortion, which shows particularly strongly on that door frame. If you follow the bottom yellow line, this is the baseline of the wall - both inside and outside the closet. This last point is important, and will lend verisimilitude to the image. Finally, your inner wall appears to be lit by a concealed lamp on the floor, just behind the projecting wall. Sure you don't want it lit from above? Hope this helps! And your admiration for Tony Blair may be a little out of date now - even those of us who voted for him twice are starting to see the cracks...  |
Posted on 03/09/04 00:25:13 AM |
|
Hank
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
Thanks for the review and comments, Steve. Yeah, the wall is out of perspective here. I can correct that easily enough. Will also correct the door as well for the purpose of this exercise. The reason I let that go is that I had a little problem manouvering it around in Photoshop. Kept wanting to "fight" me. (Maybe I should have been holding the shift key down, or something, during one of the transforms. (???)) So, I got it the best I could - for the moment. As I mentioned in my last post, there will be a subject in front of this door. The subject will be located in the immediate foreground which will fill the picture from top to bottom in front of the door and hide more than 3/4 of it - from the left side of the door. So, it didn't bother me that the door was out of perspective. (It, indeed, does appear to be busting off it's hinges!) Any shadows - as you mentioned - would be hidden by that subject also. For the purpose here, I will establish that the light on the subject (to be inserted later) - and background (door/wall) - is coming from straight ahead (eye level) and therefore would not allow for a shadow ABOVE the small visable part of the door. Though, as you mentioned, a shadow would add verisimilitude to the now opened door. Yes, the light should come from above in the closet - somewhere around the center of the ceiling as I envision it. I noticed the current light source too just after sending you the last image. (Was in a bit of a rush, so forgot to re-adjust the light source.) Will change that also in the Render - light source mode. Will play around with it a bit. Of course, the actual amount of light cast would depend on the power of the bulb used. In this instance, I would think just enough light to effectively show the interior of the closet and anything which might be in there. Agreed! (High fives to you!!) It would be most helpful to include a section on perspective in your next book. When I was rendering mechanically and needed to establish perspective lines I would pencil them in lightly first and erase them later. One could effectively do this in Photoshop as well (as layers) then simply delete these layers later on. One sometimes might encounter a difficulty in identifying the source(s) to begin a perspective line(s), and where it/they should properly intersect - if at all within the confines of the framing. (I once worked with a marvelous graphics renderer in the field of architecture, and his perspective lines were sometimes so lengthy to the vanishing point he would have to use long pieces of string to show them. There were times when certain lengths of the strings would run for several feet! A wonder to watch him in action. I learned much - but humbly admit to not putting it to practice in this image. I DO know better and admonish myself accordingly. Shame!) I believe I have reviewed all of the postings which have been sent to your site in all categories, and I do recall several ones which delt with perspective problems. This forum of yours is an excellent one and a super appendage to your book for learning, excercises and practice as well. Visiting your home page, I had the opportunity to view your animations. Some really great ones here, Steve - audio as well. I especially liked the one with Kennedy and Kruschev. HILARIOUS!!! Now I've got to go back through the different categories and find the late picture you did of Saddam Hussein and the muffins. A super example of what one can accomplish with a great imagination and creativity when one becomes thoroughly knowledgable and proficient in Photoshop, .et al. (Also really liked the one with Osama on the film strip and the montage with the cat and fish bowl, both created by other folks. Super works!) I saved the latter, but now need to go back and get yours and the Osama. Finally, re. Tony B. : Yep, been hearing a lot lately from various commentators on your side of the world about those "cracks" with the "B". We have lots of the same here on the U.S. home front, as well. With Blair and Bush in the same "back pocket" on various highly controversial issues, I would be surprised to see either one of them last for to much longer. Especially our man. I have long since alligned myself with Kerry and fully support him. Sure hope he wins in November. I am proud to call myself a liberal - but, hopefully, not a "stupid" one! (Oops! Almost forgot this isn't a political forum. Sorry.) Back to ART and back to the drawing board! Will re-submit later. Thanks again and be well. Hank |
Posted on 03/09/04 00:59:12 AM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: I just ordered you book
That's actually something Photoshop could do with; the ability to break the horizontal/vertical restraints of the guides, so you could create vanishing points, etc. I know it could be done using a layer but guides would be better. Something more to complain to Adobe about?  _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
| page: 1 2 last |